A sizable percentage of Eritreans are big fans of authoritarianism.  Has Eritrea always had this authoritarian-accommodating culture?  If not, when did this habit begin.  What, if any, was the role of our Gedli, our 30-year revolution, in the development of our authoritarian culture?    

These (or some of these) are the sort of questions that invite dissertations from social science majors.  Until then, you have to put up with our articles.   But for us to analyze the role of Gedli, we must first draft a framework agreement of some sort.  I think those of us who romanticize (according to Yosief Gebrehiwet) and “fetishize” (according to Fessehaye Woldu) the Gedli era will accept steps to de-sanctify and de-mine the Gedli era, so long as those volunteering for the de-mystification task refrain from using blunt objects when scalpels will do.  It would also be nice, but not mandatory, if they attended a course on sensitivity. 

Those of us who suspect we are gedli romantics might need a series of tests, ala Jeff Foxworthy’s “…you might be a redneck if…,” to confirm that we are. 

For example:  You might be a gedli romantic if you really think most of the Marxist-Leninist stuff that our cadres translated is their original work.  You have heard of Marxism-Leninsm-Toteelism haven’t you?  Who is Toteel? Ah, never mind.  

You might be a gedli romantic if you can get lost in youtube listening to Fihira in Asmara in 2008, in Bologna in 1990, then, an hour later, you are watching his gedli video where he is speaking directly, directly to you…or a much younger version of you,  but wait for it, wait for the chorus…and bring a handkerchief or two...menisey…

NiHka asrHayo…Meretka mles…NiHka asrHayo...Meselka mles::

You might be a gedli romantic if you quote gedli-era songs like they are works of philosophy. See how he substitutes meretka for meselka.  Deep, dude.

Guilty as charged.  I could draw a straight line, a short line, from romanticizing gedli, to romanticizing its leadership, to romanticizing its final leader. 

Whatever the cause, dear Brutus, whether it is nature or nurture; whether it is the stars or ourselves, there is, clearly, a fault.  There is a perfect storm, a combination of factors that have placed us in a bind from which it is difficult to find an exit. 

The pefect storm: (1) We do not have leaders with limited powers; we have authoritarians with unlimited powers; (2)We do not have citizens; we have subjects—many of whom are big fans of authoritarianism; (3) We do not have an opposition movement; we have aggrieved groups and wounded warriors.

The Authoritarians

If you are going to talk about authoritarianism in Eritrea, you’ve got to talk about Isaias Afwerki.  I know many Eritreans think that this is unseemly personalization of politics, but if you are going to talk about the solar system, you have to talk about the sun.   Who is to blame, us? Just because I build a shrine to someone doesn’t mean they have to accept they are a god, does it? The Big Question: what is his motivation? 

A step back.  Has Isaias always been a tyrant, a dictator of sorts or have events pushed him in that direction?   Is the person who gave his consent not only to the constraints of constitutionalism but to a constitution which imposes term limits on his presidency (read awate's interview with Dr. Bereket Habteselasse here) the same as the one who unilaterally, and without any formal explanation, postponed elections 7 years ago and is now saying the next elections are in 30-40 years?  What accounts for Isaias telling an Australian reporter in 2004  “I don’t think that [retirement] will ever cross my mind again any time in the future as long as I am alive.” Or, for the recent interviews with Reuters and Aljazeera where he made a direct reference to the CIA about 4 to 5 times? 

Why is he so cruel to his own people?

A couple of theories.  Why did the frightened man continue to beat a dead snake? Because he is terrified of snakes.  Similarly, the cruelty that Isaias shows to his own people can only be due to two reasons: he has lost his bearings or he has lost his balls.   And the two feed on each other.  He must see a whole bunch of Langley franchises in Eritrea now.  He is either paranoid or everybody really is after him.  Whatever his motivations, he is, at least in his mind, in the midst of a 3 year-old war with the United States.  He is unhappy about everything the United States is doing, everything—including the fact that it has 2,000,000 prisoners all of whom are, according to him, African-Americans and therefore—according to him—not criminals but victims of social and economic injustice. 

Over at Langley, they have drawers full of instructions on how to marginalize Third World leaders.  And chapter 1 is: make them appear kooky and conspiratorial so that eventually, at the mere mention of their names, people in polite company will chuckle, snicker and raise their eyebrows.  What the PFDJ does to Eritrean dissidents, Langley does to dissenters of American hegemony.  And like a dutiful student, Isaias has been turning in all his homework on time: of how America is full of homeless people, of how Americans eat only one meal a day; of its lack of democracy because it only has two political parties.  In the process, he appears more and more unhinged...helping Langley with its job.  

It is going to be a long war and, meanwhile, he can’t afford to be magnanimous or charitable to his people while he is at war.

The Followers of Authoritarians

According to Professor Bob Altemeyer, author of "The Authoritarians", followers of authoritarianism exhibit “seven deadly shortfalls” which are: 

 “…sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and—to top it all off—a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.” 

I think Professor Altemeyer nails it, although I have two reservations.  I think he misses one key component to the personality of followers of authoritarianism: paranoia.  He also describes followers of authoritarianism as indicating high levels of Right Wing Attitudes (RWA)—which may be the case in Canada, where he ran his experiments—but in other places, like Eritrea for example, the devotes of authoritarianism have strong left-wing biases.   

Our authoritarians—the followers of the PFDJ—show all the deadly shortfalls including “profound ethnocentrism”—in the manner Altemeyer intended it: obsession not with an ethnic group, but with an in-crowd and suspicion of the out-crowd. 

Sloppy Reasoning?  In much the same way that “pro-choice” people argue that a woman has a right to abort a fetus because it is “her body”, the PFDJ authoritarians argue that the PFDJ can do whatever it wants to do with the G-15, and we have no business on the matter, because we are talking about their comrades.  Similarly, foreigners have no business asking about the welfare of Eritreans to the Eritrean government because they are their own people.  Compartmentalized Beliefs?  How about citing an Amnesty International report to criticize Ethiopia’s human rights record while ignoring AI’s report on Eritrea which, given the alphabetical listing of countries, appeared probably a few pages previous to the one they are citing?  Hypocricy?  Have you ever listened to a PFDJ supporter give a lecture on the sanctity of the law?  It is like listening to an unrepentant felon convicted of murder talking about his rights to conjugal visits and privacy in jail. Self-blindness?  A cult member never really acknowledges he is in a cult--nor will a PFDJ authoritarian ever concede that s/he fully supports in humane, immoral and unethical policies.

It is not true to say that PFDJ followers do not have an original thought or that they do not know the truth, or right from wrong.  But it is true to say that PFDJ followers value conformity and aligning their view with that of the PFDJ hierarchy more than they do originality, or truth, or even righteousness for its own sake.   

Followers of authoritarianism are adept at rationalizing and explaining the views of the authoritarian leader; however, they are entirely and completely incapable of changing an authoritarian.  The shortest newsletter in Eritrea would be one that lists all the ideas that the followers of Isaias persuaded their leader to adopt or abandon.   

The Missing Movement

The authoritarian leader and his followers are in their circular embrace, locking our country in a never land where progress is apparent only to them. It is not even cases which can be attributed to mistakes or misinterpretations.   For example, while the FAO says in black and white that Eritrea has the world’s highest malnutrition rate, the authoritarians will tell us Ertrea is well on its way to guaranteeing food security.  An example to Africa.  To them, free press, human rights and representative government do not matter—in Eritrea.  They matter a lot everywhere else, specially Ethiopia, Somalia and, apparently, the United States. 

It is in such hopeless environments that movements emerge. But we don’t have such a movement.  Those who can lead don’t want to; and those who can’t, don’t want to give up. All we have is a collection of wounded warriors and aggrieved groups.  What we need, and what we don’t have, is a movement with a culture of volunteerism and selflessness; of enlightened ideals; of leaders who hear the call; of people with a burning patriotism; of people with transformative ideas, of… 

Damn, there I go being a gedli romantic.  The problem with Eritrea is not that it retained all the vices of gedli; the problem is that it forgot all the virtues of the gedli era. If we can own it as ours—not ELF’s or EPLF’s but ours—and if we can practice a fraction of its virtues—beginning with genuine love and care (not sympathy or pity, but love and care) for the people, then we will begin the journey to making ourselves whole again. I think this is what Saleh Johar was inviting with his address at Atlanta; and this is what Daniel G. Mikael is inviting with his call to the Next Revolution.  Eritreans of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your selfishness.  (I think that is straight from Marxism-Leninism-Toteelism.)
-

Here's another clue: "You might be a Gedli-romantic if you really think the virtues acquired during the gedli era are sufficient to defeat authoritarianism..." 

-

Guilty as charged, again. Now, I sure would like to see how the gedli-skeptics will come up with their recipe for the movement without incorporating all the virtues of our Gedli.

-

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it